On Sun, Mar 02, 2025 at 09:43:47PM +0000, Lad, Prabhakar wrote: > On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 9:39 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Your SoC designer really implemented the 0° and 180° as two separate > > > > independently controllable clocks? > > > > > > > Yes there are separate bits to turn ON/OFF the 0° and 180° clocks. > > > > Do you know what the clock tree actually looks like? I can think of > > two different ways this could be implemented: > > > > ----+----------on/off--- > > | > > +----not---on/off--- > > > > or > > > > -------on/off-+------------------ > > | > > +---not---on/off--- > > > > In the first, the clocks are siblings. In the second there is > > parent/child relationship. > > > It's the first case in this SoC. Umm, okay. I'll just pick my jaw up off the floor. :D Given that, then yes, go with your existing clock binding, because that's the most sensible. However, what would be useful for future maintenance is to put some commentry at the top of the new glue file describing this (pictorially) so that when someone looks at this later we know why it is this way. It'll be useful information if someone else does the same because then we can say "hey, we already have a binding for this situation!" -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
